[ad_1]
Mandatory minimum sentences were introduced in the US in 1986 as part of the war on drugs. They have been criticized for contributing to prison overcrowding and being unfair, as judges cannot use their discretion. The sentences are based on the type and amount of drug involved and the offender’s criminal history. Critics argue that money could be better spent on drug treatment programs and education. Proponents argue that they send a clear message of non-tolerance to drug dealers and can encourage them to think twice about their chosen careers.
Mandatory minimums were enacted in 1986 in the United States as part of the war on drugs. A mandatory minimum sentence is imposed on some drug convictions, meaning that if convicted an offender will spend a pre-determined amount of time in prison. The mandatory minimums have been criticized by a variety of organizations who accuse them of being a direct cause of prison overcrowding and not contributing valuablely to the war on drugs.
The mandatory minimums look at three things in a drug conviction. The first thing to consider is the type of drug. Mandatory sentences vary depending on the drug involved because some drugs are considered more harmful than others.
The second issue considered is the amount of the drug. An individual carrying a large volume of drugs may be a drug dealer, rather than just a personal user. Therefore, mandatory minimums are higher for individuals caught transporting large quantities of the drug.
Finally, the mandatory minimums look at the history of previous convictions. A lighter sentence should be handed down to a first-time convicted individual, while repeat offenders face longer prison terms.
Mandatory minimums have been criticized by some members of the legal community because they do not allow judges to use their discretion in a case. Especially in the case of non-violent crimes, mandatory minimums are considered quite unfair. Because the federal government has a zero-tolerance policy for illegal drugs, an individual caught for the first time carrying a small amount of drugs for personal use will still face jail time. In these cases, a judge cannot decide to issue a lighter sentence such as civil service.
Therefore, a nonviolent drug offense can be punished almost as severely as a violent one. Drug-related crime is a serious problem in the United States. Opponents of mandatory minimums believe that if judges were given more leeway, they might be able to more effectively punish those involved in violent crime and save the legal system money on nonviolent, petty offenders.
Many believe that the prison population has been directly affected by the mandatory minimums. They believe that the increase in population has subsequently contributed to prison overcrowding, an increase in crime within prisons, and increased expenses for the construction and maintenance of new prisons. Critics of mandatory sentencing argue that this money could be better diverted towards drug treatment programs and education.
Proponents of mandatory sentencing argue that the mandatory minimum sentence is serving a purpose. The mandatory sentence was originally handed down to apprehend the so-called “bosses” of the drug industry, defined as the main traffickers of illegal substances such as cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine. An individual at risk of serving prison time under mandatory sentencing laws could have his sentence lightened by reporting a drug dealer or drug ring. There are instances where this has occurred and the threat of a mandatory minimum sentence has no doubt contributed. Unfortunately, drug kingpins tend to hide behind a wall of low-level drug dealers, making them difficult to spot and prosecute even with the mandatory minimums.
Furthermore, advocates argue, the mandatory minimums send a clear message of non-tolerance to drug dealers. A mandatory minimum guarantees that an individual caught transporting drugs will be punished for it in any court in America. Mandatory minimums can encourage drug dealers to think twice about their chosen careers, as well as ensure that drug offenders are treated equally in every federal court.
